Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
This office action is in response to the patent application filed on October 30, 2024. Claims 1-5 are currently pending.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in Application No. JP2024-014377, filed on February 1, 2024.
Should applicant desire to obtain the benefit of foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) prior to declaration of an interference, a certified English translation of the foreign application must be submitted in reply to this action. 37 CFR 41.154(b) and 41.202(e). Failure to provide a certified translation may result in no benefit being accorded for the non-English application.
No action the part of the applicant is required at this time.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on October 30, 2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, because the claim purports to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, but fails to recite a combination of elements as required by that statutory provision and thus cannot rely on the specification to provide the structure, material or acts to support the claimed function. As such, the claim recites a function that has no limits and covers every conceivable means for achieving the stated function, while the specification discloses at most only those means known to the inventor. Accordingly, the disclosure is not commensurate with the scope of the claim.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites …the contact risk determination condition is relaxed. However it is uncertain what relaxed means in this context. For examination on its merits, it will be interpreted as reduced.
The term “low speed” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “low speed” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For examination on its merits, low speed will be interpreted as a legal speed one would expect when approaching an intersection.
The term “likelihood…is high” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “likelihood…is high” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For examination on its merits, a high likelihood will be interpreted as 100%.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because it is not falling under any of the four statutory categories of invention (processes, machines, manufactures and compositions of matter). Specifically, the claimed “vehicle control device” under the broadest reasonable interpretation, encompasses a computer program per se (often referred to as “signal per se”) thus not having a physical or tangible form (MPEP § 2106.03). Although random-access memory and magnetic tape are statutory media, carrier waves are not because they are signals similar to the transitory, propagating signals held to be non-statutory in Nuijten. 851 F.3d at 1294, 112 USPQ2d at 1133 (citing In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 84 USPQ2d 1495 (Fed. Cir. 2007)). Accordingly, because the BRI of the claims covered both subject matter that falls within a statutory category (the random-access memory), as well as subject matter that does not (the carrier waves), the claims as a whole were not directed to a statutory category and thus failed the first criterion for eligibility. Correction is requested to remedy this deficiency (e.g. by [excluding transitory signals]). Therefore, claim 1 is rejected under 35 USC § 101 as being directed toward a non-statutory category of invention.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 USC 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 1 is directed to a vehicle control device (i.e. an apparatus). Therefore, claims 1-5 are within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
In this case independent claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Specifically, the claims under their broadest reasonable interpretation cover certain mental processes. Claim 1 recites:
A vehicle control device for executing risk reduction control for controlling an own vehicle so as to reduce a contact risk when a contact risk determination condition, that is a condition for determining that the contact risk between a target that is present within a predetermined range in a traveling direction of the own vehicle and the own vehicle is high, is satisfied, wherein the vehicle control device is configured such that when satisfying
a first condition for determining that a road on which the own vehicle is traveling is a narrow road,
a second condition for determining that an oncoming vehicle approaching the own vehicle, and a moving body moving at a low speed between the oncoming vehicle and the own vehicle, are present within the predetermined range,
a third condition for determining that a likelihood of the oncoming vehicle reaching a rear end of the moving body before the own vehicle reaches a front end of the moving body is high, and
a predetermined fourth condition relating to relative movement of the oncoming vehicle and the moving body,
the contact risk determination condition is relaxed.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bold limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. For example, “a first condition for determining that a road on which the own vehicle is traveling is a narrow road”, “a second condition for determining that an oncoming vehicle approaching the own vehicle, and a moving body moving at a low speed between the oncoming vehicle and the own vehicle, are present within the predetermined range”, “a third condition for determining that a likelihood of the oncoming vehicle reaching a rear end of the moving body before the own vehicle reaches a front end of the moving body is high, and”, and “a predetermined fourth condition relating to relative movement of the oncoming vehicle and the moving body” in the context of this claim encompasses determining certain conditions based on the observations made from the surroundings while driving. Meanwhile, “the contact risk determination condition is relaxed” in the context of this claim encompasses taking less risky driving actions as a result of the conditions above being satisfied. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea. As explained above, independent claim 1 recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
A vehicle control device for executing risk reduction control for controlling an own vehicle so as to reduce a contact risk when a contact risk determination condition, that is a condition for determining that the contact risk between a target that is present within a predetermined range in a traveling direction of the own vehicle and the own vehicle is high, is satisfied, wherein the vehicle control device is configured such that when satisfying
a first condition for determining that a road on which the own vehicle is traveling is a narrow road,
a second condition for determining that an oncoming vehicle approaching the own vehicle, and a moving body moving at a low speed between the oncoming vehicle and the own vehicle, are present within the predetermined range,
a third condition for determining that a likelihood of the oncoming vehicle reaching a rear end of the moving body before the own vehicle reaches a front end of the moving body is high, and
a predetermined fourth condition relating to relative movement of the oncoming vehicle and the moving body,
the contact risk determination condition is relaxed.
There are no identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
101 Analysis – Step2B
There are no identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Dependent claims 2-5 have been given the full two-part analysis, including analyzing the additional limitations, both individually and in combination. Dependent claims 2-5, when analyzed both individually and in combination, are also patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 based on the same analysis as above. The additional limitations recited in the dependent claims fail to establish that the dependent claims are not directed to an abstract idea. The additional limitations of the dependent claims, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Accordingly claims 1-5 are patent ineligible.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-2 & 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2020/331467 A1, to Omhura et al., hereafter Omhura in view of US 2022/0410890 A1, to Takei et al., hereafter Takei.
Regarding Claim 1, Omhura discloses A vehicle control device for executing risk reduction control for controlling an own vehicle so as to reduce a contact risk when a contact risk determination condition, that is a condition for determining that the contact risk between a target that is present within a predetermined range in a traveling direction of the own vehicle and the own vehicle is high, is satisfied, wherein the vehicle control device is configured such that when satisfying (Omhura [Abstract], Examiner Note: Omhura discloses a vehicle control device for braking an own vehicle in response to detecting a potential collision with an oncoming vehicle, 2, and a second oncoming vehicle, 3)
a first condition for determining that a road on which the own vehicle is traveling is a narrow road (Omhura [0046] & Fig. 4, Examiner Note: Omhura discloses detecting the lane of the own vehicle which is the width of a single lane that the own vehicle won’t cross),
a second condition for determining that an oncoming vehicle approaching the own vehicle, and a moving body moving at a low speed between the oncoming vehicle and the own vehicle, are present within the predetermined range (Omhura [0077] & Fig. 3, Examiner Note: Omhura discloses the second oncoming vehicle (i.e. moving body) going ahead of the oncoming vehicle, 2, which would therefore be between the own vehicle and the oncoming vehicle. This analysis is done within the range of the intersection.),
However, Omhura does not specifically disclose …a third condition for determining that a likelihood of the oncoming vehicle reaching a rear end of the moving body before the own vehicle reaches a front end of the moving body is high, and…a predetermined fourth condition relating to relative movement of the oncoming vehicle and the moving body (Omhura [0093]-[0094], Examiner Note: Omhura discloses detecting if the second oncoming vehicle can pass the first oncoming vehicle (i.e. relative movement)), the contact risk determination condition is relaxed (Omhura [0067], Examiner Note: Omhura discloses if it is determined the time to collision is not less than a predetermined step time, the collision preventing braking is not performed (i.e. risk is relaxed)).
Takei, in the same field of endeavor, teaches…a third condition for determining that a likelihood of the oncoming vehicle reaching a rear end of the moving body before the own vehicle reaches a front end of the moving body is high (Takei [0059] & Figs 3A-3C, Examiner Note: Takei teaches determining if an oncoming vehicle, 51, reaches the rear of a body, 60 & 52, before the own vehicle, 50, has reached the front of the vehicle, 61) , and…
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable likelihood of success, to modify the vehicle control device of Omhura with the distance determining steps of Takei in order to avoid a collision with the vehicles in question (Takei [0054]).
Regarding Claim 2, Omhura in view of Takei teaches The vehicle control device according to claim 1,
However, the modification does not specifically teach wherein the vehicle control device is configured such that the fourth condition is satisfied in a situation in which a speed difference between the oncoming vehicle and the moving body exceeds a predetermined first threshold value and also an acceleration of the oncoming vehicle exceeds a second threshold value, or in a situation in which the speed difference is no greater than the first threshold value and also the acceleration of the oncoming vehicle exceeds a predetermined third threshold value.
Takei further teaches wherein the vehicle control device is configured such that the fourth condition is satisfied in a situation in which a speed difference between the oncoming vehicle and the moving body exceeds a predetermined first threshold value and also an acceleration of the oncoming vehicle exceeds a second threshold value, or in a situation in which the speed difference is no greater than the first threshold value and also the acceleration of the oncoming vehicle exceeds a predetermined third threshold value (Takei [0060] & [0071]-[0072], Examiner Note: Takei teaches determining if the acceleration rate of the oncoming vehicle is below or greater than a threshold amount. Takei further discloses determining whether the velocity difference between the host vehicle and oncoming vehicle is beyond a threshold)
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable likelihood of success, to modify the vehicle control device of Omhura with the speed and acceleration threshold steps of Takei in order to avoid a collision with the vehicles in question (Takei [0054]).
Regarding Claim 5, Omhura in view of Takei teaches The vehicle control device according to claim 1,
However, the modification does not specifically teach wherein the vehicle control device is configured such that when a distance between the moving body and the own vehicle is no greater than a predetermined fifth threshold value, a vehicle speed of the own vehicle is limited to be no greater than a predetermined upper limit value.
Takei teaches wherein the vehicle control device is configured such that when a distance between the moving body and the own vehicle is no greater than a predetermined fifth threshold value, a vehicle speed of the own vehicle is limited to be no greater than a predetermined upper limit value (Takei [0058], Examiner Note: Takei teaches when the distance between the oncoming vehicle in the host vehicle is a predetermined distance or less (i.e. fifth threshold), the velocity determination unit determines if the host vehicle is decelerating so as to smoothly stop at the stop line, 61 (i.e. upper limit)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the filing date of the claimed invention and with a reasonable likelihood of success, to modify the vehicle control device of Omhura with the distance and speed threshold steps of Takei in order to avoid a collision with the vehicles in question (Takei [0054]).
Allowable Subject Matter
It is encouraged the applicant request an interview with the examiner prior to filing of amendments in order to agree upon claim language which will overcome the 35 USC 112 and 35 USC 101 rejections above.
Claim 3 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: …when at least one of the first condition to the fourth condition is not satisfied, and also the relative speed is a first speed, a first predetermined value is assigned to the fourth threshold value, and when the first condition to the fourth condition are satisfied, and also the relative speed is a second speed that is lower than the first speed, a second predetermined value that is greater than the first predetermined value is assigned to the fourth threshold value. When considered in combination with the other claim limitations renders the claim novel and non-obvious over the prior art of record. Specifically, the prior art of record does not disclose nor teach two different scenarios for when the conditions are not satisfied in which certain values are assigned to thresholds, and when the conditions are satisfied, and when a speed value is lower than another speed value, a certain threshold value is assigned to a fourth threshold value.
The closest prior art is US 2022/0410890 A1, to Takei et al., hereafter Takei which discloses a velocity threshold setting unit in which the threshold is set under many different circumstances. For example, the velocity threshold setting unit may set a threshold based on a velocity profile of the host vehicle, and certain distance and velocity differences between the host vehicle, oncoming vehicle, and parked car. However, Takei is silent on setting various threshold values based on whether the first and fourth conditions are met or not.
Another close prior art is US 2020/0331467 A1, to Omhura et al., hereafter Omhura which discloses the conditions one and four being met, as shown above, and further discloses determining if speed values are above a certain limit. However, Omhura does not specifically disclose anything regarding setting certain velocity limits as required by the prior art.
The combination of Takei and Omhura fails to disclose nor teach two different scenarios for when the conditions are not satisfied in which certain values are assigned to thresholds, and when the conditions are satisfied, and when a speed value is lower than another speed value, a certain threshold value is assigned to a fourth threshold value. Therefore, claim 3 is allowable over prior art.
Claim 4 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: …when at least one of the first condition to the fourth condition is not satisfied, and also the overlap rate is a first overlap rate, a first predetermined value is assigned to the fourth threshold value, and when the first condition to the fourth condition are satisfied, and also the overlap rate is a second overlap rate smaller than the first overlap rate, a second predetermined value greater than the first predetermined value is assigned to the fourth threshold value. Which requires the first and fourth conditions are not met and an overlap rate is assigned and a threshold value is assigned, and when the first and fourth conditions are satisfied, the overlap rate is a second value which is smaller than the first assigned value, and a threshold value that is smaller than the first threshold value is assigned.
The best prior art of record is US 2020/0391733 A1, to Kumagi which discloses many mentions of overlap rate and thresholds being set, however, Kumagi does not specifically disclose setting a threshold value for an overlap rate, nor does it disclose comparing an overlap value to any threshold. Further, Kumagi does not disclose any nexus with conditions which meet the first and fourth conditions requirements.
Another close prior art is US 2024/0042996 A1, to Park et al., hereafter Park which discloses overlap ratios between two vehicles when determining whether a collision risk is high. Park also discloses many conditions being met, but none that set values for the overlap rate based on whether the specific conditions of the first and fourth conditions are met.
The combination of Kumagi and Park fails to disclose nor teach anything which requires the first and fourth conditions are not met and an overlap rate is assigned and a threshold value is assigned, and when the first and fourth conditions are satisfied, the overlap rate is a second value which is smaller than the first assigned value, and a threshold value that is smaller than the first threshold value is assigned. Therefore, claim 4 is allowable over prior art.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2023/0234574 A1, to Funabashi et al. discloses a vehicle driving assist device which contains an oncoming body recognizer and a obstacle recognizer in order to provide information to the emergency collision avoidance control for avoiding collision
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL T DOWLING whose telephone number is (703)756-1459. The examiner can normally be reached M-T: 8-5:30, First F: Off, Second F: 8-4:30.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Erin Piateski can be reached at (571) 270-7429. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MICHAEL T DOWLING/Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/Erin M Piateski/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669